On Wednesday, the Obama administration shared its concern
towards the protection of the Great Lakes from the recent growth of invasive
species and toxic algal blooms that pose a threat to the region’s drinking
water. Some of the suspected causes of the toxins are runoffs from over
fertilization, malfunctioning septic systems and livestock pens. The EPA Great
Lakes Regional Director hopes for $300 million a year through 2020 to assist in
the effort of cleaning the Great Lakes.
While it is currently being discussed on how best to reduce
the toxins, how much government involvement should be taken to reduce these
externalities?
http://online.wsj.com/articles/federal-officials-outline-great-lakes-strategy-1411581647?KEYWORDS=great+lakes+plan
100% I think this is a worthy allocation of money, time and resources. Thinking about the short and long term effects if government didn't intervene, potentially catastrophic to the world's largest source of fresh surface water. For example, the article references fear for damage to important habits and native edible fish. If government doesn't intervene to promote protection of the Great Lakes, not only is there an obvious threat to the region's drinking water, but there are further potential impacts on the fishery industry, tourism industry, restaurant industry, or even higher prices on those native edible fish if the supply drops.
ReplyDeleteI think this is worthy for the future. As a Michigander, I wouldn't ever want to see fewer vacation-goers, cutbacks on native edible fish, or any damage to the economy as a result if government chose not to intervene.
I agree completely with you, Cam. We need to protect the Great Lakes. They are a valuable resource for Midwest states and all other states too. They are a major source of clean fresh water. If the government does not intervene, the inhabitants will face irreversible damage. The government should not take a major resource for granted. It is a resource that pays long term dividends to the general public. Without the lakes, a large portion of the Michigan economy would become endangered.
DeleteIn my completely biased opinion, the $300 million dollars should not even be questioned for cleaning the Great Lakes.
I agree with Cameron. I'm not an environmentalist or anything, but I believe the great lakes are a very important part of Michigan, not just for their beauty and the fact thats where much of our drinking water comes from, but for their economic impact as well. The great lakes are a huge part of Michigan's tourism industry, especially during the summer. If the great lakes become over polluted by these invasive species, Michigan's economy could take a huge hit. I'm not usually one for government intervention, but in this case I believe something needs to be done.
ReplyDeleteI agree that there needs to be some action taken by the government, but worry that the only action that can be taken is trying to clean up the problem. Since they suspect that a large portion of the pollution may come from a malfunctioning septic tank or over-fertilization it seems as though it would be very hard for the government to trace the pollution to a source. This would make it difficult to engage in preventative maintenance and could lead to the government spending more money fixing the side effects than if it could treat the problem. This exemplifies one of the major problems faced when dealing with an externality, that it may be difficult to find all the parties involved in a situation in order to remedy it.
ReplyDeleteScott brings up a good point in questioning the logistics of how the money will clean up our lakes. It seems that instead of treating the problem as it exists, there is a definite need to trace the pollution to the source and limit further damage instead. This will be more complicated if it involves industrial plants in the Chicago area, so it is tempting to just throw money into clean up efforts. I hope there is a combination of both treating the lakes and limiting further pollutants for the future.
Delete